Right to Parenting and Gender Transition
Does the right to parenting to direct the moral or religious training of a child end when gender transition is at issue? In a recent family law case, that question was put to the test after a trial judge’s comments to the child led one father to try and disqualify the judge.

Gender Transition and Parental Rights
The father is a Christian minister and youth pastor. He opposed, on moral and religious grounds, gender transitions for his minor child a biological male – before adulthood.
In 2016, the child was removed from the mother’s custody because of her substance abuse issues. The father was not an offending parent, and the child was not adjudicated dependent as to the father.
After a reunification with the mother, the child later ran away from the mother after the mother had relapsed. Importantly, the mother had given the child sex-reassignment hormones which she had bought on the internet without a lawful prescription.
The child then moved in with the father. However, the father refused to seek any sex-reassignment treatment, and opposed any form of gender transition before adulthood.
The Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) moved for an emergency modification of placement for the child, seeking to remove the child from the custody of both the mother and the nonoffending father.
The only grounds that DCF provided for why the child should be removed from the father’s custody was not allowing the child to live and dress as a female or pursue gender transition.
The trial judge removed the child from the custody of the father because the father: seemed to be unaware and unaccepting of the child’s current emotional situation and ensuing needs based on the father’s opposition to gender transition for the child before adulthood.
The father asked for the child to be returned to his custody on the grounds that it is unlawful to infringe on parental rights in the absence of any findings of actual or prospective abuse, abandonment, or neglect.
The day before the hearing, the trial judge interviewed the child in-camera. The trial judge referred to the child by female pseudonyms, as well as “sister” and “young lady.” The trial judge also told the child that she could order the child’s father to submit to “professional help,” as a way to change the father’s moral or religious beliefs. As a parting remark, the trial judge told the child, “Chin up, sister.”
The father moved to disqualify the trial judge. The trial judge promptly entered a written order denying the motion to disqualify as “legally insufficient.” The father then petitioned the appellate court to disqualify the trial judge.
Parental Rights v. Right to a New Judge
In Florida, a party in a lawsuit may move to disqualify a trial judge if “the party reasonably fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.
In Florida, children do not belong equally to parents and the state. Rather, their protection is first entrusted to the parents, extended family next, and then, if necessary, the state.
On appeal, the panel found the father had a right to rely on his moral or religious beliefs to direct his child’s upbringing. The father was also found to have a right to refuse to allow the child to further the child’s gender transition before adulthood under Florida law. Moreover, the father’s opposition to gender transition before adulthood is not prohibited by Florida law.
The trial judge’s pre-hearing remarks — referring to the child by female pseudonyms, telling the child “you are one smart, strong[,] [t]ogether, young lady,” and to “[c]hin up, sister”— implied a foregone conclusion, before hearing the father’s motion, that the trial judge was supportive of the child’s gender transition before adulthood and opposed to the father’s reliance upon his moral or religious beliefs to otherwise direct the child’s upbringing.
The trial judge’s in-camera interaction with the child went beyond mere attempts to establish a rapport with the child. The trial judge verbally expressed an inclination to order the father to submit to “professional help,” in an effort to change his moral or religious beliefs.
However, one judge on the panel dissented. While the dissenter had no quarrel with the father’s parental right to direct his child’s upbringing, or with Florida’s statutory protection of that right, the dissenting judge felt the trial judge was simply attempting to relate to the child on the child’s terms. To the dissent, the trial judge’s comments were completely appropriate.
The opinion is here.
New Article Hague Abduction Convention Not Your Typical Custody Case
My new article “The Hague Abduction Convention: Not Your Typical Custody Case”, discusses a problem frequently encountered by lawyers representing parents in international child custody disputes. The problem is parents treating their Hague Abduction Convention case as if it were any other custody case. The article is now available on the KidSide website.

Hague Abduction Convention
The Hague Abduction Convention is the primary mechanism to ensure the return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained from their country of habitual residence. The two main purposes behind the Convention are to protect children from the harm of an international abduction and secure the left behind parent’s rights of access to their child.
However, many parents confuse the purposes of the Convention, mistakenly thinking their best defense rests on proving what a better parent they are. It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that the judge in a Convention case does not even have jurisdiction to hear their child custody dispute.
But before any defenses are even asserted, a parent seeking a child’s return must first prove their case. To prove a case under the Convention, a Petitioner must demonstrate where the habitual residence of the child was before the wrongful removal; that the removal breached custody rights; and at the time of the child’s removal those rights were actually exercised.
There are a limited number of available defenses under the Hague Abduction Convention, and those defenses are different from a typical child custody case. They are different because the purposes of the Convention are different. Given that courts in a Convention case cannot decide the merits of the custody dispute, typical arguments about the best interest of the child don’t have much traction, leaving a limited number of defenses.
KidSide
Child abduction cases under the Hague Convention have a negative impact on children. Add to that, the growing number of high-conflict court cases, like divorce and domestic violence. Because of the growing number of high-conflict cases, there is always a lack of support for kids caught in the legal system.
That’s where KidSide comes in.
KidSide is a 501(c)3 which supports the Family Court Services Unit of the Miami-Dade County, Florida courthouse – the largest judicial circuit in Florida. KidSide can use your support as it supports Family Court Services.
Together, they have been providing crucial services to children and families for more than 20 years. The Unit assists all judges and general magistrates with some of the Court’s most difficult family cases by providing solution-focused and brief therapeutic interventions.
KidSide helps the Family Court Services Unit provide services for families at no cost in the areas of alienation, child/family assistance, co-parenting, crisis assistance, marital reconciliation, parenting coordination, reunification, time-sharing, supervised visitation, and monitored exchanges.
They are staffed with dedicated professionals who are committed to helping families reduce their level of conflict and provide supportive services for the entire family system with particular sensitivity to children.
You can support KidSide by clicking here.
The Kidside article is here.
The Myth of Cross-Border Asset Protection

Is cross-border asset protection a myth? As the world becomes more mobile, issues relating to foreign prenuptial agreements, and the type of marital regime people enter, have taken on greater importance.
Prenuptial agreements are not only becoming more common, but are crossing international borders. The situation in which a couple marries in one country, owns assets in other countries, and live in yet another country, has now become commonplace.
I am honored to be speaking at a webinar on the Myth of Cross-Border Asset Protection on April 5th with Juan Francisco Zarricueta from Santiago Chile, and our two moderators, Vanessa L Hammer of Chicago, and Melissa A. Kucinski, from Washington, D.C.
The Webinar is sponsored by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and is open to everyone. One hour of CLE is available.
Registration information is available here.
Divorce while Pregnant
Many couples and family lawyers find it odd that in some states you cannot get a divorce while pregnant. Missouri has one such law. Sure, you can still file for a dissolution of marriage while pregnant, but at least in Missouri, the court must wait until after birth to finalize child custody and child support. That law may change.

Show Me the Change
“It just doesn’t make sense in 2024,” said Rep. Ashley Aune, a Democrat representing District 14 in Platte County, Missouri. Aune introduced a bill this legislative session that essentially says pregnancy cannot prevent a judge from finalizing a divorce or separation. “I just want moms in difficult situations to get out if they need to,” she said.
Why do some states make expecting mothers wait? Some of the reasons include: resolving issues about paternity and establishing the father. Other states insist that adopting a visitation schedule over a newborn – before there’s a baby to even visit and the parents have established new residences – increases costs and judicial labor.
The same may be true in fixing the amount of child support. A court may want to avoid entering a child support order before there’s a child to support because, if parents lose or gain jobs, the support amount will have to be recalculated. Along the same lines, some children may be born with special needs. A court would want to know if the baby is born with an illness, disability, or other condition that requires extra parental attention or generates high doctor bills.
There are other reasons to hold off or prohibit finalizing a divorce. What if the mother has twins? Moreover, courts don’t have authority to make orders affecting unborn babies. Once a baby is born, it’s legally a person and a state resident.
Florida Divorce and Pregnancy
Being pregnant during a divorce adds a great deal of complexity to the process. The official term for divorce in Florida is “dissolution of marriage”, and you don’t need fault as a ground for divorce. Florida abolished fault as a ground for divorce.
I’ve written about divorce issues before. The no-fault concept in Florida means you no longer have to prove a reason for the divorce, like your husband’s alleged infidelity with a congresswoman. Instead, you just need to state under oath that your marriage is “irretrievably broken.”
There is no explicit prohibition against dissolving a marriage while a spouse is pregnant. If a spouse is pregnant, this fact must be included in the petition for dissolution of marriage when filed.  While it is unlikely a court would dissolve a marriage before the child is born, there may be situations where a divorce can be granted. For example, a court could dissolve a marriage while a woman is pregnant if the husband is not the father to the child and the biological father is involved through establishing paternity and financial responsibility for the child.
A Legislative Touchdown?
So what changed in Missouri? During a committee hearing earlier this month, Aune said one woman shared a powerful testimony regarding an abusive situation she was in while pregnant:
“Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”
A report from Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services states that out of 10,098 women surveyed between 2007 and 2014, nearly 5% were abused either before or during pregnancy. That equates to about 500 women.
Many feel a change in Missouri’s law could literally save lives. For example, abusive partners, they might be using reproductive coercion and control to keep their partner pregnant so that they can’t ever actually be granted a divorce.
The new bill in Missouri currently states:
“Pregnancy status shall not prevent the court from entering a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation.”
However, the bill is still gestating in the Missouri legislature.
The Fox59 article is here.
Equitable Distribution of Human Organs
If you promise to love someone with all your heart, can you ask a court for an equitable distribution of your donated human organs back? One very upset New York organ donor spouse is asking the court to be made whole again.

Kidney Pains
Richard Batista, a 49-year-old doctor from Ronkonkoma who graduated from Cornell University Medical School in 1995, married Dawnell Batista on August 31 1990. The couple had three children, then ages 14, 11 and 8.
After Dawnell had two failed kidney transplants, her husband donated one of his kidneys to his wife in an operation that took place at the University of Minnesota Medical Centre on June 18 2001. Richard Batista said his marriage at the time was on the rocks because of the strain of his wife’s medical issues.
“My first priority was to save her life. The second bonus was to turn the marriage around.”
Four years later, Dawnell sued her husband for divorce, alleging domestic violence and infidelity.  One week before the divorce trial was scheduled to begin, Richard announced he was seeking a stay of the case until his retained “expert” could give an opinion to the court estimating how much his kidney was worth.
After Dawnell filed for a divorce, Richard wanted the court to either award him his kidney back as part of his settlement demand, or credit him in the equitable distribution the fair market value of his donated kidney – an estimated cool $1.5m.
Florida Equitable Distribution
I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.
However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.
In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired before the marriage; assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift. Importantly for this doctor’s divorce, will the donation of his pre-marital body part be construed as an interspousal gift?
Kidney Failure
In a 10-page decision, the Nassau County Supreme Court rejected the ex-husband’s request that it should consider his donated kidney as an item of property to be valued in the divorce suit, according to Dawnell Batista’s lawyer.
The court said “marital property” covers a lot of things, but human tissues or organs aren’t any of them. It also said that not only was Richard Batista’s attempt to extort money from his wife for the kidney he donated legally unsound:
“The defendant’s effort to pursue and extract monetary compensation therefore not only runs afoul of the statutory prescription, but conceivably may expose the defendant to criminal prosecution.”
Medical ethicists agreed that the case is a non-starter. Asked how likely it would be for the doctor to either get his kidney back or get money for it, Arthur Caplan at the University of Pennsylvania’s Centre for Bioethics, put it as:
“somewhere between impossible and completely impossible”.
What’s more, no reputable surgeon would perform such a transplant and no court could compel a person to undergo an operation, he said.
The NBC New York article is here.
Can a Prenuptial Agreement Make You Smile More
Something to make you smile more or less, Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, did not have a prenuptial agreement when he divorced his first wife, MacKenzie Scott. While his divorce cost him $38 billion, some argue his net worth would hover around $288 billion today. If celebrity net worth lists don’t interest you, the importance of having a prenuptial agreement should.

Prenup Prime
At the time of his separation with Scott, Bezos was the wealthiest individual globally, with a net worth of $150 billion, primarily due to his 16 percent ownership in Amazon. Bezos’s divorce is considered a significant shift in the distribution of wealth at the pinnacle of global affluence. That’s because the distribution of the Bezos fortune at the time of the divorce was practically unprecedented in size.
As of February, Jeff Bezos’ wealth is estimated at $191 billion, positioning him near the top of the list of the world’s richest people. Embarrassingly, Bezos is rumored to rank behind Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk, whose net worth is $199 billion.
The Musk ranking comes with a caveat. A recent legal decision invalidated $56 billion in options Tesla awarded Musk in 2018, potentially affecting his net worth and standing.
Despite this, Musk’s financial status remains unchanged because of the possibility of an appeal. Both men trail behind Bernard Arnault and his family, who oversee LVMH, with a net worth of $217.6 billion.
Florida Prenuptial Agreements
I’ve written about prenuptial agreements before. Prenuptial agreements are about more than just resolving uncertainty in a marriage.
When a spouse is a major shareholder of company, their wealth can be subject to wide price swings. For example, when the head of Continental Resources was getting divorced, shares of his company dropped 2.9%. Conversely, when Rupert Murdoch announced his divorce, shares of News Corp gained 1.4%. Why? Because in Rupert Murdoch’s case, the divorce announcement stressed his prenuptial agreement, and a divorce would have “zero impact” on the company
A prenuptial agreement (or “prenup” for short) is a contract between people intending to marry. A prenup determines spousal rights when the marriage ends by death or divorce. This can be especially important in second marriages.
If you divorce without a prenup, your property rights are determined under state law, and a spouse may have a claim to alimony while the suit for divorce is pending and after entry of a judgment.
That’s where prenups come in. Prospective spouses may limit or expand state laws by an agreement. Prenups are also used to protect the interests of children from a prior marriage, and to avoid a contested divorce. Prenups can be a reliable guide down rough rivers if they’re done right.
Prime Deals
According to Yahoo! Finance, an intriguing “what if” regarding Bezos’s billionaire ranking develops had he not divorced without a prenup. Before their divorce, Bezos’s 16 percent stake in Amazon was valued at $150 billion.
Following the divorce and subsequent financial decisions, including significant sales of Amazon stock to fund his Blue Origin space venture, Bezos’s share in the company decreased to approximately 10%. These transactions, coupled with the divorce settlement that transferred a 4% stake in Amazon to Scott, have substantially altered Bezos’s potential net worth.
Despite all of that, had Bezos maintained his full share in Amazon, without the divorce, and without liquidating portions of his stock, and without funding Blue Origin, his wealth might have been higher. Given that Amazon’s market cap is now around $1.8 trillion, a 16 percent stake would equate to $288 billion.
Now imagine how much different – and better – his life would have been if he’d only had a prenup?
The Yahoo! Finance imaginary calculation of the Bezos fortune surpasses the wealth of other billionaires, including Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, and Arnault. Although purely hypothetical, the Yahoo! Finance analysis highlights the importance of having a prenuptial agreement.
The Yahoo! Finance article is here.
Reducing Divorce Waiting Periods
With many countries and U.S. states, having divorce waiting periods, the District of Columbia’s recent legislation, which is reducing its waiting period, is big news. The D.C. Council gave unanimous approval to legislation that eliminated long waiting periods to file for divorce. The waiting period was considered especially harmful to survivors of domestic violence filing for divorce.

Waiting in Vain
D.C. law previously allowed a couple to divorce after six months of living separately, only if both parties mutually and voluntarily agreed to it. If a spouse contested the divorce, D.C. law required the couple to remain legally married for a year. Now if one spouse wants a divorce, they can file for one at any time — without any waiting period.
“It made no sense at all that someone might be chained to their abuser or their partner when they didn’t want to be. This was a common sense reform that allows people to move on with their lives and also provide some extra supports for survivors of domestic violence.”
The D.C. Council unanimously approved the bill in November 2023, and the new law took effect last week. The new D.C. law also requires judges to consider domestic violence history, including physical, emotional and financial abuse, when determining alimony or property distribution and it explicitly allows judges to award exclusive use of a family home to either spouse while awaiting litigation.
Florida Divorce Waiting Period
I’ve written about divorce waiting periods, and your rights in divorce before. Like the District of Columbia and other U.S. states, Florida also has a divorce waiting period of sorts. In Florida, no final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be entered until at least 20 days have elapsed from the date of filing the original petition for dissolution of marriage.
 The thinking behind waiting periods in Florida reflects the protective regard Florida holds toward the preservation of marriage and a public policy that marriage is the foundation of home and family.
In some cases the waiting period is longer. For instance, no dissolutions in Florida are allowed in cases of an incapacitated spouse unless the party alleged to be incapacitated has been adjudged incapacitated for a preceding period of at least 3 years. However, the court, on a showing that injustice would result from this delay, may enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage at an earlier date.
Tired of Waiting
This change to the D.C. law will eliminate one of the many barriers people face when leaving abusive partners. The up-to-one year waiting period, which was established in the 1970s, was considered by many to be outdated and paternalistic.
Half of all states have a waiting period between the filing of divorce papers and when the marriage is legally dissolved, which can range from six months to even longer in some states. But why?
It has long been a recognized public policy by many states that encouraging and preserving the institution of marriage was a societal benefit. These days that notion may seem like an anachronistic legal concept. But the public policy underlying the presumption that marriage is a good institution still exists in many state statutes. Delaying a divorce then, comes from the theory that a couple, if they had more time, could preserve their marriage.
The Washington Post article is here.
When a Prenuptial Agreement Fails
If marriage is a business relationship, a prenuptial agreement is like the incorporation documents. But what happens if during your marriage you find out the prenuptial agreement you paid for fails? For one woman, the results of a prenup fail could mean the loss of her entire inheritance.

Protecting Your Assets
After you and your spouse get married, ‘what’s theirs is yours, and what’s yours is now theirs.’ Unless you get a prenup. A prenuptial agreement is a written document between prospective spouses thinking about marriage. A prenup becomes effective upon marriage.
What can you put in a prenup? There are few limitations, but you can agree on your rights to any property either you or your spouse have or will have, who can manage and control the property, and what happens to property in the event of death or divorce. You can also agree to alimony, or to waive alimony,  and many other issues that do not violate some public policy or criminal law.
There are two things she advises before getting married: (1) buy separate comforters for your bed, and (2) get a prenuptial agreement that fully protects you – even if you don’t think your assets are worth much. Without a prenup, you might learn you’re not be protected the hard way.
In the article, the reporter got married right out of graduate school and had no job. Her assets consisted of a used car, a cat, and an inheritance she kept in a trust fund. Her future husband had no assets, but was planning to go to dental school which had a hefty price tag. The Wife’s prenup ensured that her trust fund could not be used to pay for his graduate school tuition.
Notwithstanding her prenup though, during the marriage, the wife used her trust fund monies on their living expenses. Then she decided to ignore the prenup entirely. She used all of her premarital inheritance as a down payment on a marital home. Then she titled the house in both names. Then she also agreed her husband’s salary would pay the mortgage and most other bills related to “their” home.
Florida Prenuptial Agreements
I’ve written about prenuptial agreements before. Prenuptial agreements are not just for the rich and famous. Anyone who brings assets, or a large inheritance, into their marriage can benefit from a prenuptial agreement.
Prenups are important to have in place before a married couple starts investing in businesses, properties, and other investments.
But there can be ‘prenup fails’ too. In addition to being completely ignored, prenups can also be challenged in court. Florida has both case law and a statute to help lawyers, judges, and the parties determine if a prenuptial agreement is enforceable. For example, Florida adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.
The UPAA is a statute that requires that all premarital agreements be in writing and signed by both parties. It is enforceable without consideration other than the marriage itself.
Couples wanting to sign a prenup can enter into an agreement with respect to their rights and obligations in any of their property. Whenever and wherever property was acquired or where it is located; couples can control their right to buy, sell, use, transfer, or otherwise manage and control their property if they separate, divorce, or die.
When ruling on the validity of a prenup, Florida courts must consider things such as fraud, duress, coercion, in addition to the unfairness of the agreement, and whether there was any financial disclosure. While prenuptial agreements may be challenged in court, we will have to wait and see if the court will invalidate Costner’s prenuptial agreement.
A Messed-up Prenup?
After seven years, the husband informed his wife that he wanted a divorce. He also wanted to sell their jointly owned house and split the profits equally. Without a house though, the wife couldn’t qualify for a mortgage on a new home, and all of her premarital inheritance money was now tied up in a marital home she had to split with her soon to be ex.
When the wife contacted her lawyer to enforce her prenuptial agreement, and get back the deposit she alone paid for in their joint home, she learned the hard way her prenup would not help her. Why? Because she’d spent her inheritance on a marital home titled in both of their names. Her prenup only protected her trust fund money from being spent on paying off her husband’s student loans.
The couple came to an agreement, which was fleshed out over the next few weeks by their lawyers. They sold the house, and the wife got enough money from the sale of her marital home to pay for rent – with the help of alimony.
She was officially divorced by the end of the year, but she found out the hard way her prenup failed to protect her because she ignored it. The wife could have protected her inheritance in several ways: not putting the home in joint names, or amending her prenuptial agreement to decide how her down payment would be treated in a divorce.
Instead, she learned a few lessons. Her advice now is: “Get a prenup.”
The Business Insider article is here.
Speaking on Interstate and International Custody
Honored to be speaking on interstate and international child custody issues at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando from January 26th to January 27th. I will be discussing federal and state statutes relating to child custody and family support, in addition to the Hague Convention on international child abductions. The event is co-sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Interstate Custody
Parents move from state to state for various reasons. It is a subject matter I have written and spoken about many times. Whether children are moved by parents wrongfully or not, moving your children creates interstate custody and support and problems.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, can be critical laws to know in those cases.
International Child Abductions
What happens if your children are wrongfully abducted or retained overseas? If that happens, you must become familiar with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention. This international treaty exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence.
The Hague Convention applies only in jurisdictions that have signed the convention, and its reach is limited to children ages 16 and under. Essentially, The Hague Convention helps families more quickly revert back to the “status quo” child custody arrangement before an unlawful child abduction.
If your children are wrongfully taken out of the country or wrongfully retained after the time for returning them passed, the Hague Convention can help you get them back.
Interstate Family Support
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, the UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders.
The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.
Certification Review Course
It is a privilege to be invited to speak on interstate custody and international child abductions at the annual Family Law Board Certification Review Seminar again. The annual seminar is the largest and most prestigious advanced family law course in the state. Last year’s audience included over 1,600 attorneys and judges from around the state.
The review course is co-presented by the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
Registration information is available here.
Your OnlyFans Account Could Cost You Child Custody
Family lawyers are concerned with our clients’ online activities. That’s because it is not only your fans looking at your social media and other accounts. If your Ex discovers you are selling sexually explicit material of yourself on OnlyFans it could cost you child custody as one woman in Philadelphia found out.

City of Brotherly Love?
The Father and Mother were married for less than two years and had separated before their Child was born.  Since 2014 the couple shared legal custody. The Mother had a majority of the time, and Father had alternated two or four nights per week.
In 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify custody, alleging their Child was involved in two car crashes while being driven by Father’s new wife.
At the hearing, the Father defended by complaining to the court the Mother was posting sexually explicit photographs of herself on her OnlyFans website. The Father also made a ChildLine report about the Mother’s behavior.
The trial court immediately terminated the Mother’s contact with Child and ordered a forensic interview with Child. The court held that if the forensic interview revealed the Child was not aware of Mother’s OnlyFans activity, she would be granted supervised telephone calls – but no in-person contact pending a future court order!
However, if Child was aware of the Mother’s online activities, then Mother would be denied all contact with Child. The order also required the Mother to delete her OnlyFans  account and submit to a psychological evaluation.
The Mother filed a petition for emergency hearing after Children and Youth Services showed no sign of child abuse or that Child was aware of the Mother’s OnlyFans activity. The Mother’s petition was denied, but she was given back partial physical custody of Child every other weekend from Friday to Sunday evening, with Father retaining sole legal custody.
In 2020, Mother asked to modify the order asking the court for both shared legal and physical custody. In 2023, the family court awarded shared legal and physical custody of Child. At the hearing, the judge found there was no evidence that OnlyFans activity caused Child any harm, and ruled that the court was not permitted to “judge a parent’s private adult behavior outside the presence of the child”.
The Father appealed.
Florida Child Custody and OnlyFans
I’ve written about child custody issues before. In Florida, “custody” is a concept called parental responsibility, which can be either shared between parents, or one parent  can be given sole responsibility.
In child custody cases generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities. Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child.
In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends. This year, Florida enacted a law making a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a child is in the best interests. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the child.
Determining the best interests of a child is not entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family. Some of those factors concern the moral fitness, and the mental and physical health of the parents.
Not Only Fans
On appeal, the Father argued the family judge did not appropriately consider Mother’s “poor life choices” when granting Mother shared legal and physical custody of Child based upon her prior OnlyFans site.
The appellate court noted the OnlyFans account was deleted in 2020, she has never posted adult content on any other site, her interactions with her patrons on the site were entirely virtual and solely through her pseudonymous username, and she never created content in her home when the  Child was present.
Additionally, the child investigation revealed that Father’s child abuse report was “unfounded.” In reviewing the best interests of the child factors in Pennsylvania, the trial court found that “none of the custody factors include the morality of a parent’s judgment or values.”
The trial court then determined that Mother’s OnlyFans activities were irrelevant to the court’s custody analysis because Father failed to establish the Mother’s activities on OnlyFans caused Child any harm. The record showed the Child was not aware of Mother’s activities. The Father presented no evidence to prove otherwise, and did not present evidence showing Mother’s OnlyFans activities raised any safety concerns because the Mother participated anonymously with her location shielded.
The appellate court agreed that a parent’s morality is not an enumerated custody factor in Pennsylvania, and the Court correctly rejected consideration of a parent’s morality or sexual lifestyle when determining custody where there was no finding of an adverse impact on the child.
The opinion is here.